I think I have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the concept of being transgendered works. Clarifications would be helpful.
So I've been wrestling with this idea for a long time.
I get that the idea behind being transgendered* is that you don't feel like you were born into a body of the correct sex. You were born male but feel like a woman, or you were born female but feel like a man, and all that. That part I get. I obviously don't "get it" at the level that someone who has that issue would get it, but I know how wonky the mind can be and it doesn't strike me as too hard to believe that this is a thing that happens.
Simultaneously, I see that people of a more progressive mindset are enthusiastic about eliminating gender norms and stereotypes. Women aren't constrained to the kitchen, and men are perfectly fine being stay-at-home dads. All of this I vehemently agree with.
However, I notice a very foundational contradiction when I read or hear about how transgendered people came to realize that they identify as the opposite gender. Pretty much all of the time, I hear them say things like, "I was born a male, but I always enjoyed playing with dolls and wearing dresses," or, "I was born a female, but I always enjoyed rough-housing and trucks," or whatever. Granted, I don't frequently seek these stories out, but whenever I come across them, they follow that general format.
What I don't understand is how you can believe that gender norms are completely arbitrary while simultaneously using those norms as evidence that you were born into the wrong sex. It seems to me that believing in the superficiality of gender norms should automatically render the concept of being transgendered redundant. After all, if being a man or woman isn't determined by the things society socializes us to believe, how would you possibly have any indication that your body has the wrong sex? What would having the "wrong sex" even mean if gender norms are disregarded? If being a man or woman isn't determined by your actions or preferences in life, what left is there to define the genders except your biological sex?
Surely there must be a concept or aspect to this whole thing that I'm missing, because it's hard to believe that such a widespread and vocal social movement has been made out of such a paradox. If anyone has some clarifying information, I'd appreciate it.
*I know "transgendered" isn't the preferred term, but it's clear in meaning and the preferred term is just going to change again soon anyway. So no offense meant by using it.
EDIT: It has since been made known to me that "transgender" itself suffices as an adjective, so my terminology was off on a grammatical basis. For posterity, though, I'll leave the submission as-is.
I'm a trans woman, and at least in my experience, this isn't the idea at all. Like, when I look back at my childhood and see myself participating in things that are gendered female but that obviously arise due to gender roles and norms that are not innate, I don't think that liking those things pointed toward me being a woman because they are inherently feminine.
I think they point that way because I was not a neutral person and I saw how people behaved around me. I saw the women in my life performing their gender in a certain way, and I wanted to partake in some of that because they did it and I was learning that that's what being a woman meant. The part that makes me trans is that I wanted to connect with womanhood in the first place, even if I was ignorant of what was happening.
Why does language changing mean that you have no responsibility to keep up if you want to be respectful? Plus it's clear that you didn't use it for ease of use or clarity, since if you just said "transgender" you wouldn't have had to type a disclaimer.
Also I'm just going to throw this in but I don't think it warrants its own post or anything: I'm not a huge fan of having the "noob questions for trans people"-type stuff among the rest of what could constitute lgbt content. At the same time, I understand that ~lgbt is barely active right now so it's not like it would be worth splitting. Just seems like awkward things to throw together. Spaces for lgbt people to just hang out and talk about issues that have an effect on us, news, etc. are great and so are places for people with questions, they both have the right to exist...but being the same place kinda hurts the effectiveness of the former, imo.
This isn't really your fault OP, just a thought I'm tagging on.
Yup! This would also be a case where groups and trusted users having control over their own implementation of the "bubbling up" mechanic could be put to good use, if they happen. I could see problems with these kinds of questions bubbling up and dominating ~lgbt even with that in place.
That, or separate it entirely into a big "ask" group, like ~ask.lgbt. I kinda like the idea of being able to have open dialogue with a community without necessarily having to water down or (to those more defensive) invade their spaces. Noob questions for anything are cool, but separating them can allow us to keep higher levels of discussion (including for something as non-controversial as learning a competitive video game).
That seems reasonable, maybe ~talk.ask instead of a new top-level ~ask? Not currently, but someday it might also be possible to do some special linking where, for example, if there were active topics in the ask group with the "lgbt" tag, there's some sort of indicator of that in ~lgbt as well. So they wouldn't really be inside the group, but have some form of link to still make them easily accessible.
I'd go the other way. Rather than create a ~talk.ask subgroup, create an ~lgbt.ask subgroup. If someone wants to ask a question of LGBT people, they're more likely to start off by going to a place where they know they'll find LGBT people: ~lgbt. Having the relevant .ask subgroup under ~lgbt will make it easier for those people to find.
Also, putting LGBT-related questions in a non-specific group encourages all sorts of uninformed people to add their two cents' worth. And these uninformed opinions will muddy the waters and confuse the person asking the question.
I think the issue with ~lgbt.ask is that ~lgbt users would then need to effectively opt out of seeing the "ask" content, instead of opting in. So then it would have the same downsides by default as just being inside the group.
That's a good point, but at least it does give ~lgbt users the ability to opt out of "ask" content: they/we don't currently have this ability.
I think the negatives of putting "ask" type posts in ~talk outweigh the negatives of putting these posts in the related groups. I'm also considering long-term effects: do we want all "ask" topics going under ~talk, or is it better to have them in the related groups? Is it better to ask science-related questions in ~talk.ask.science or ~science.ask? Should history-related questions go in ~talk.ask.history or ~history.ask? Should questions about religion go to ~talk.ask.religion or ~religion.ask? I think it makes much more sense for these questions to go to the groups where the experts are. The experts who want to answer questions can stay subscribed to the .ask subgroups, and those who don't want to answer questions can unsubscribe from the .ask subgroup. Also, the people who read those groups to learn will see the best .ask posts bubble up with their educational information.
If these questions go in a general unrelated group, there is the potential for trouble-makers to deliberately troll the asker by giving misleading answers. There's also the "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" crowd who will chime in with their two cents' worth ("I heard something once at high school about this..."). There's a reason /r/AskHistorians is more popular than /r/AskHistory: they make sure that questions are answered by people who actually know what they're talking about.
Yeah, it makes sense. I suppose we could always have special handling for the "ask" tag/subgroup as well to make it opt-in by default, if that aspect is important.
I think that in general this line of thinking makes a lot sense except for in minority groups looking for a safe space. It makes a ton of sense to have the experts there on hand with the bubbling up for content areas, hobbies, basically anything except for an actual identity. Those are all chosen areas of expertise; an identity is not chosen and if it's a minority identity, it's often persecuted. Unlike someone who has chosen their area of expertise and learned it over time and would probably love to share that learning, for someone of a particular identity it can be a bit draining to be pelted by these "noob" questions when you're just looking to chat with others who share your identity. So, while I think in general it would make a ton of sense to format it like you're suggesting, you've hit (one of) the big exceptions to that through lgbt where it should definitely be separate.
I think the 101 thread was meant to be a place for folks to ask questions without disrupting things too much, a sort of stop-gap measure until there are more subgroups. But I imagine it's fallen out of sight for a lot of folks, depending on their settings.
Anyway, just wanted to say that I agree with this, and felt a bit odd commenting in the most recent threads on "they" pronouns, too. A nonbinary person who's just joined tildes might not appreciate seeing their pronouns seemingly up for debate, at least at first glance...
OP of one of the "they" topics here! I'm sorry if my post came across as dismissive or otherwise unaccepting. I am not LGBTQ but I hoped it would be received in good faith. So anyway, it's a curious dilemma we have here...
Should Tildes be a fractal of increasingly granular subgroups? I think there are a lot of Reddit refugees, myself included, who would love to see that. It's the "a place for everything, and everything in its place" model, where there's a dedicated group for LGBTQ "insiders" (for lack of a better word), and a separate place for newcomers and the curious. And, as others have said, even those could be subdivided into discussion/news/AMA/politics/whatever groups.
But there's another group that would say the broadness of the current group list is a feature. Especially because the site is new, and the userbase is small, the best way we can facilitate community is to avoid fragmentation and keep groups as inclusive as possible. I'm afraid that might come at the expense of that "insider" group (for now). But I would hope we can all get along well enough, even if that means a glut of "101" posts, that it's not too much of a hindrance for those who want something deeper.
Hey~ No worries, I don't personally think the topic itself was super dismissive (although I'm cis, so my opinion kinda counts less in that regard). I think it just falls into what @Whom was saying; there's a difference between a community for LGBT folks (to hang out and discuss things) and one that's about LGBT stuff in general, like questions from cishet folks. And atm since we have just one large ~lgbt group, things might be a little at odds. For example, the 101 thread started because people kept interjecting into introduction threads like "who here is queer/trans?" to ask questions, which is offtopic and I imagine a bit intrusive.
That is a very dangerous mindset to have.
It's exactly the right mindset to have. The only people who can say whether a topic about transgender people and/or trans issues is dismissive of transgender people or trans issues are transgender people themselves. The rest of us don't get to speak for them.
If that's the case, what is to stop a particularly combative transgender person from claiming that literally every attempt at discussion is dismissive, and therefore disallowed? What if two transgender people disagree? Who do I side with? If I'm not allowed to weigh in because I don't fit the check boxes, why should I attempt to avoid dismissiveness in the first place?
To be clear, I definitely do intend to avoid being dismissive, precisely because I believe I get to have a say. Also because being dismissive is mean.
Nothing. So you stop engaging with them. That's what I do.
Why should you side with either of them? Just stay out of it and let them sort out their own issues. It's not up to you to act as a referee.
You're taking this to unnecessary extremes. If a trans person (or any person) tells you that something you wrote is dismissive of them or their issues, you take that at face value. It's not your life. It's not your background. It's not your issue. It's theirs.
Why would I stop engaging with them? You yourself said that if they claim I'm being dismissive, I must defer to their claim. At what point may I determine that it's wise to disengage, since I'm not allowed to judge my own argument?
You misunderstand me. You said, if I understand you, that if a transgender person claims my argument is dismissive, I must always believe them, because I'm not allowed a say in the matter, because I'm not transgender. You did, after all, say this:
But if two transgender people disagree, how do I know whether my argument is dismissive? I could take into account the circumstances of why each made their own individual judgment, and use that to guide my argumentation in the future, but you're saying I'm not allowed to. I'm not transgender, so I'm not allowed to weigh in. Would you have me simply trapped in a limbo of uncertainty, never able to determine how dismissive my argument is, because the only people allowed to judge it disagree?
I disagree. It's very conceivable that two transgender people could disagree about whether my argument is dismissive or not.
But if this is the case, exactly when do I stop engaging with them, which is what you said I should do above? And again, why would I stop engaging with them? If I take them at face value, I must therefore concede that I am being dismissive. The reasonable course of action is to adjust my argument to attempt a fix. And if they say I'm still dismissive, I must therefore concede that I am. If this continues ad infinitum, and if I am indeed not allowed to judge the situation for myself, when may I disengage? Wouldn't disengaging itself be an admission that I'm not deferring to them, even though that's what you said I should do?
This isn't an "unnecessary extreme." Your claim, as you've presented it, is very black-and-white: if a transgender person claims I'm being dismissive, I am being dismissive. No exceptions.
@Algernon_Asimov already covered this, but:
If I am not in a group that could be hurt by something, the fact that I am not hurt obviously holds less weight. I don't consider that dangerous-- we're talking about how some members of a certain group may feel. Why would my feelings be equally relevant to the discussion?
I don't know if I'd go so far as to say equally relevant, but I do think it's dangerous to utterly disregard the intent of the person making the comment. Part of productive discussions is assuming, to some extent, that even a relatively caustic isn't intending to stir up trouble. If we defer entirely to only one party in the conversation, we're sacrificing the importance of intent, and potentially opening ourselves up to abuse, as I describe above.
I don't think that's really the problem of the existing userbase. Provided the discussions remain civil, we'd likely do better anyway without people who are so easily... let's say, perturbed. There's really no point in jumping down the rabbit hole of censoring controversy to avoid new users who are entirely hypothetical anyway.
I just want to say that just because a discussion is civil doesn't make it any less harmful to see. Civil doesn't mean kind. Plenty of people have civilly discussed whether I should be allowed to marry who I want to, or whether I should be able to be with my husband when he's in the hospital. There have even been civil discussions on whether people like me should be chemically castrated.
It's easy for people to say things like "we'd be better off without people who were so easily offended" when they're a member of a privileged group that doesn't have basic things like their ability to be with the person they love questioned wherever they go. If you're not one of these "easily offended" people and you can't understand how hurtful these kinds of things can be, you really need to spend more time talking to and listening to these people, not less.
I fully understand how hurtful they can be. But it's not wise to censor ideas (that are otherwise presented with civility) just because they're hurtful, no matter who we happen to be hurting. If our goal is to not hurt anyone with words, we might as well shut down Tildes right now, because that isn't going to happen.
And before the argument gets repeated, I don't believe my majority status is influencing my opinion on this. I have been on the receiving end of arguments that work me up a great deal, regarding concepts I feel passionately about, but I still accept that, provided they were made with sufficient civility, it is my responsibility to regulate my own reactions, not their responsibility to censor themselves for my benefit.
I also wonder how far this "let's agree to never offend anyone" mentality extends. Should we ban speech that really fundamentally offends, say, child molesters? Or war criminals? If not, why don't they get the same protections? What about people who aren't as dramatically evil, but still arguably a little evil? What about people who are just not as good as we'd like? Where do we draw the line?
I was speaking to the difference @Whom highlighted between a community for a specific group of people and a community for questions posted by people outside that group. I wasn't saying that certain topics should be censored, just that it seems people want different things from an ~lgbt group. I imagined (based on what @Whom said and how a few folks seemed to feel about offtopic questions in introduction threads) that some people might be put off a bit if they expect one type of community and find the other (or our current combination of both).
I think there's room for both types of communities, so saying we're better off without those who'd prefer a community of LGBT folks rather than a 101 community... Well. Let's just say I disagree.
So if I'm understanding correctly, the issue is just that I was assuming the gender development... process (?) happens in a vacuum? That actually makes quite a lot of sense.
I guess I was a bit unclear on that point. I meant that because the terminology that each group prefers changes so rapidly and, if you ask me, arbitrarily, I don't view it as disrespectful to choose a term that is otherwise neutral. "Transgendered" isn't out of vogue because it's clearly offensive, in other words. It's arguably offensive because it's out of vogue.
I'm not sure what you mean here. "Transgender" is a noun while "transgendered" is an adjective, yes? I don't see a reason to prefer one over the other. It didn't even occur to me to use "transgender" instead; I just chose a term I knew was clear.
Of course, I do apologize if that strikes you as offensive.
Your post here is asking a basic question about the nature of gender and gender roles as it applies to LGBT people, yet at the same time you state that you are of the opinion that terminology has changed without reason.
Isn't it safe to assume that you just don't know the reason why, not that there was no reason?
I don't think so. I may not entirely understand the ins and outs of transgender...ism, but I've paid attention to our cultural and political landscape long enough to recognize that sort of nonsense when I see it.
EDIT: "Nonsense" meaning arbitrary language policing, not the concept of transgender...itization.
That was a suggestion for your benefit, but I see that didn't really work, so let me be more clear.
None if it is arbitrary. You simply don't know the reasoning.
If you want to know anything about specific terms, feel free to ask.
I do have my doubts, obviously, but I'm open to hearing what you have in mind. Are there any really common terms they prefer to use, or to avoid using, for reasons that escape me?
What terms are you looking for? I'm replying to your stating that terms are being redefined for arbitrary reasons, so knowing what specific terms you were referring to would stop me from having to effectively define all of the terminology and its history...
If you're talking about "transgenderism" and "transgendered", those two words were never adopted in the first place. "Transgender" is both a noun referring to the overall concept, and an adjective that can be applied to a person, so these other forms are just semantic mistakes.
"I don't know the ins and outs of transgenderism." and "A transgendered person" should just be "I don't know the ins and outs of transgender" and "A transgender person".
If you're thinking of words like "transvestite" and "transsexual", the former referred historically to cross-dressers and has become a pejorative, and the latter is considered inaccurate - a trans woman would much rather present as a woman in public without having a vaginoplasty than getting the vaginoplasty yet presenting in public as a man. Hence the core issue isn't sex, it's gender.
"Transsexual" is also used by a lot of anti-trans activists who don't believe in gender as being distinct from sex, so it's kind of become associated with them.
The only other one I know people are often confused about is LGBT/Q/A/I/+, and that's pretty straight forward as well. "LGB" became a term in the 80s, and expanded to "LGBT" in the 90s, then "LGBTQ" in mid-90s. "LGBT" is accepted as an implicit catch-all for gender and sexual minorities, but LGBTQ is more explicit by the inclusion of the word "queer", which is itself a catch-all. The inclusion of A (for asexual) and I (for intersex) never caught on, not because asexual or intersex people aren't considered LGBT, but because a long and highly explicit acronym would only serve to exclude people who don't fully fit in it.
I had thought the big sticking point was using "transgender" as a noun versus as an adjective, because there's that portion of the populace that believes adjectives should be replaced with "person-first" language, and such. But if I'm understanding you here, the real issue is just grammatical, not ideological.
Is that so? "I don't know the ins and outs of transgender" very much feels, intuitively, like it should be incorrect. It just doesn't sound right, and I would argue doubling up on that word sacrifices clarity.
That, and because it's rather ridiculous to expect people, especially in verbal communication, to list off a seven-syllable acronym.
The "person first" language thing, if you're talking about the preference for e.g. "black people" instead of "blacks", is probably a part of it.
As for "transgender" sounding incorrect in that context, I understand if it does, and people do often opt to avoid that usage ("I don't know the ins and outs of being transgender"/"what it's like"/etc). It sounding intuitively wrong in some cases is where people come up with "transgenderism" in the first place. Consider that it's exchangeable with "gender": "I don't know the ins and outs of gender" is correct, right?
And yeah, LGBTIAQ is a mouthful. Personally, I sort of wish we could just use GSM (Gender and Sexual Minorities) or just 'queer', though that hasn't necessarily been fully "reclaimed" yet.
Indeed! I guess it just goes to show how far outside my own personal parlance this subject matter is.
I know I'd feel weird using "queer" without being 100% certain that it wouldn't offend whoever I'm speaking with. But we've already established that I'm not the best source on this, so perhaps I ought to just stop thinking so hard.
I see. I appreciate the correction!
Yeah, I think that by describing it simply as a longing or something, it's overly simplifying it, but I think it works for the point at hand.
We're all different and I neglected to get into why I don't actually like the "childhood signs" thing much in the first place. We all experience "transness" differently, and it's entirely possible for a trans woman to reject those things just as it's possible for a cis woman to do. Sorry if I made it sound like only that intense longing that's super important to you is the only valid thing.
I'm glad you're understanding of that! I remember being so confounded when I was younger, when the concept was first introduced to me. It really makes me feel for the stereotypical old geezer who can't wrap his mind around progressive ideals.
The difference between him and myself, I'd like to believe, is that I try!
Each trans person has their own reasons for wanting to transition. You can think of it as being a combination of two factors, feeling that their body is the wrong gender or that their personal habits and preferences do not fit with their gender. The strength of each factor is different for each transman or woman. Some of them do not even experience one of the factors.
People who step out of their gender role are often STRONGLY punished, especially men. Can you imagine a man who acted and dressed exactly like a woman? Society does not accept this.
The point is that there needs to be CHOICE. We should be able to conform or break away from our traditional gender roles without being punished.
Currently, there is very little choice. I know society has changed a lot, but in many ways, women and men still live very different lives. So I can see how someone, even if they do not have physical gender dysphoria, would feel that the opposite gender role much more suits them. Still, don't count out physical gender dysphoria! I suggest you read about it to understand that factor of the trans experience
I know you've edited, but I think this deserves a comment of its own to explain the edit correctly.
Please stop saying "transgendered".
If you said that someone has been "gayed" everyone would jump down your throat for it as it's just ridiculous. Nobody is "transgendered", they are transgender, they have always been transgender, they will always be transgender, in much the same way nobody is "gayed".
As for your post. There is no contradiction. You are conflating norms associated with a gender with enforcement of norms within society.
Nobody is trying to say that a majority of one gender doesn't have a preference for x or a majority of the other gender doesn't have a preference for y, in potentially biological causes.
LGBT people are fighting against the ENFORCEMENT of gender norms because they are harmful to those outside of those gender norms. Whether it be the enforcement of "men should only have relationships with women, never other men" or whether it be the enforcement of "you can't be a man because we assigned you as a woman at birth, bad luck".
I don't think that's necessarily the case. I have definitely read/heard stories of people who realized it at a certain point.
What you "think" isn't relevant. Opinions aren't important. Only the facts are important and this is becoming increasingly more understood - When you realise that you are trans is not important. You have always been trans, whether or not you realise and accept it.
You are making an argument based on ignorance of the topic. Being trans is biological. If being trans is biological then you are trans from the day you were born. It doesn't matter how long it takes to recognise it, it was always there.
I'm going to assume that you're being honest here and actually do want to learn about the topic, the facts and the science so that you stop saying things that are ignorant. So here is some reading material for various basics of the topic. I've quoted the most recent scientific literature review that highlights a portion of the biological evidence covering dozens of studies:
How science helps understand gender identity
Understanding "sex" isn't just a matter of genitals or chromosomes:
https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/im-xy-know-sex-determination-systems-101/
https://www.gp.brightonandhoveccg.nhs.uk/new-thinking-about-gender
Evidence that being transgender is biological (need free account so I've quoted synopsis)
Transgender women have same brain patterns as women
Transgender men have same brain patterns as men
Full NHS GP's guide to supporting trans patients
If you want even more. Head to /r/science and search for "transgender". The subreddit did an entire week of AMAs with top figures in the field. Every thread had thousands of comments and hundreds of questions answered. They're invaluable for learning the topic.
Transgendered is fairly offensive. Transgender is already an adjective, and the '-ed' ending implies that being transgender is something that 'happened' to trans people, not something that is a present state of being.
But isn't it the case that not all trans people are immediately aware of their gender identity? It seems odd to claim that gender is both fluid (and thus liable to change) while prohibiting referring to gender identity as something that can, and potentially has, changed.
Or perhaps this is a point of contention between the transgender community and the genderfluid community?
I mean for one you should realize those things don't encapsulate all trans people's experiences. I had boyish interests and behavior growing up but once puberty started, things went downhill fast. My body became increasingly unsettling and I became increasingly detached from it. I fell into depression and dissociation.
When I transitioned, my hobbies, clothes, etc weren't what changed. I still enjoy the same media, where baggy and schlubby clothes, and am overall pretty much a slob. I'm basically the same person just a woman now. Gender roles actively work against my transition and the way I live now.
I don't really know what "feeling like a woman" or "feeling like a man" means, I just feel like me. What I do know though is when I had male hormone levels, a male appearance, and considersed myself a man, I suffered horrendously. Now that I have female hormone levels, appear female, and consider myself a woman, I live happily and healthily.
Please forgive my ignorance on this topic (not being transgender or even knowing anyone who is), but for those who are transgender, is there a significant difference for you for people who were born as the wrong sex and needed surgery to make corrections versus people who see themselves as a different gender because of how our society portrays/discriminates/labels people of different genders?
For example, in situation number 1, one person actually feels like the body is alien, foreign and disruptive, but in situation number 2, another person feels that participating in social life is impossible given the absolutely crazy gender stereotypes our society has and honestly can’t function given how the mind processes daily actions and thoughts and therefore it’s necessary to transition in order to function normally in community with others.
To you, are these two one and the same or are they vastly different? I really, really don’t mean to offend anyone but as I said I don’t know any transgender people and this has been clinging to the back of my brain since the discussion began in our culture. I’ve been living in a country (for most of my adult life) where transgender people are hidden, so I’m hoping someone here can respond to my question.
How dysphoria might manifest will vary between people. For some it might come explicitly from perception of one's body, others may be less direct. I'm mostly of the bodily sort, so I can't really speak for others.
The two really aren't all that distinct, various social factors can cause me distress because they remind me or call attention to aspects of my body that I'm not comfortable with. When someone refers to me the wrong way, it reminds me my bodily appearance is male.
Thanks for your reply!
If/when people refer to you the wrong way, do you feel that is because they are objectifying you and lumping certain expectations along with that objectification? In other words, do you feel this is an expectation hoisted upon you by others, or is this an expectation about yourself that comes into conflict with how you perceive others should/shouldn't represent you? (Perhaps that was even more confusing; if so, sorry!)
It's just that if they guess that I'm male based on my appearance that tells me I appear male, which I do not desire to be. I don't care if because of them assuming I'm a guy they place male expectations on me, what I care about is the fact they thought I was a guy.